HACC Judge Selection: What Must Change to Make the Competition Work

Finding judges is never an easy task. And when it comes to the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC), the process is arguably even more complex than the one for the Supreme Court.

On May 20, the long selection process concluded for two candidates—Tetiana Lytvynko and Olena Chernova. The High Council of Justice submitted them for appointment. What remains is a ceremonial stage—the President will issue a decree. However, this outcome will not meet HACC’s staffing needs, as 23 out of 25 vacancies remain unfilled.

This means another large-scale attempt to find new HACC judges lies ahead. And without learning the lessons of the previous competition, achieving a better result will not be possible.

This attempt is critically important because in a year, in May 2026, the mandate of the Public Council of International Experts (PCIE) to participate in HACC judicial selection will expire. Therefore, we may now have only one chance to properly complete the composition of the court, and it must be used wisely.

Filling HACC with good judges is, first and foremost, a necessity for Ukrainian society to have virtuous, professional, and untainted specialists to administer justice in top-level corruption cases. Moreover, it is a crucial step on our path to European integration.

Who qualifies?

The status of a judge is the same for everyone, but the path to earning it can vary greatly. A special procedure and specific legal requirements make a HACC judge’s seat inaccessible to a large number of legal professionals. As a result, the HQCJ faces a major challenge: how to find 25 HACC judges, and more importantly, where to find them?

Currently, the position of HACC judge is open only to experienced lawyers, scholars, and judges who, among other things, have not worked as law enforcement officers, political figures, or staff of certain central government bodies, such as the NACP, ARMA, etc., within the last 10 years.

When HACC was established as a new body in 2019, it was staffed with professionals who met these criteria. But after nearly 6 years of court operation, it is safe to say that HACC has matured as an institution with strong values and practices that can positively influence the new legal professionals who join it.

It is therefore time to allow more qualified and ethical professionals with sufficient work experience to compete for a place on the Anti-Corruption Court.

However, lawmakers have a somewhat different opinion. Unfortunately, there has been no move to repeal the “special” experience requirement, and efforts to lift certain restrictions have not found parliamentary support.

For example, Draft Law No. 13114 was registered in Parliament to remove some of the existing restrictions for HACC competition participants. Despite the efforts of the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Policy to pass the draft before the new competition, MPs failed three times even to vote to include it on the agenda.

Subsequently, the relevant committee incorporated provisions from that draft law into another, No. 12331-2, in a renewed attempt to implement new rules before the next selection round. On May 14, the law was adopted, but without the provision that would have lifted the ten-year restriction for former state officials.

Still, the law did introduce some changes—candidates who failed or missed the qualification exam in the previous round will now have another chance to apply.

While this is a positive change, it will not significantly increase the number of candidates by itself.

How to find the best?

The newly adopted law also includes several procedural improvements for the competition. For example, lawmakers removed the additional HQCJ meeting, which should help accelerate the recommendation process for candidates who have passed the exam and the integrity check.

Also, by analogy with IQ testing, the fixed minimum passing score of 75% for the Ukrainian statehood test has been removed. From now on, HQCJ will determine the score threshold independently.

So, Parliament has in fact optimized the competition process. The next body responsible for improving the selection procedure is the HQCJ. The Commission must signal to the public and to potential candidates that it is prepared to enhance the process.

Transparency International Ukraine has analyzed and outlined recommendations that HQCJ can implement. Given the critical importance of this competition, specifically, the link between its outcome and financial aid, as well as the end of the PCIE’s mandate, we believe it is vital to attract more candidates and ensure transparency at all stages.

Based on the experience of the previous competition, we expect that before the start of the selection, the Commission will:

• approve and publish a clear competition timeline;
• properly test and validate all qualification exam tasks;
• establish threshold scores for cognitive ability and statehood history tests based on clear and publicly disclosed criteria;
• –  arrange transparent, criteria-based evaluation of candidates’ practical assignments.

We hope that the HQCJ will take lessons from the shortcomings of the past competition and demonstrate a high-quality approach in organizing the next one. This